Book Review: Are We Together? By R.C. Sproul

Are We Together? A Protestant Analyzes Roman Catholicism by R.C. Sproul
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

R.C. Sproul has offered a very helpful contribution to the discussion of Roman Catholicism vs. Protestantism. It is far from settling the debate though. And there are pros and cons to this book, but the pros outweigh the cons, which is why I gave it four stars.

PROS: It's brief and very easy to read. It covers six major concerns of the Roman Catholic Church, and all six of those concerns are modern concerns (not ancient or medieval concerns which aren't very relevant today). Sproul also presents a very optimistic view of that tradition as well. He doesn't bash Roman Catholicism anywhere in the book, which was very refreshing. The last chapter on "Mary" is worth the price of the book alone. In fact, I consider the evidence presented in chapter 6 on Mary to be a very clear expose of mariolatry which pervades some, if not most of Roman Catholicism.

CONS: The major downside to this book is found in his closing thoughts. R.C. Sproul concludes that Roman Catholics could possibly be considered Christian brethren, but protestants should not presume to do so. Moreover, Sproul contends that protestants should evangelize Roman Catholics as though they cannot be saved unless they embrace the "protestant" doctrine of justification by faith alone and stop venerating Mary. Even though the Roman Catholic doctrines about Mary are so obviously contrary to Scripture to protestants, and their view of Justification is also contrived and compounded with man-made contradictory traditions, I don't personally conclude that Roman Catholics should not be considered Christians right from the outset, especially if they've been baptized and profess faith in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. I also don't personally think that Roman Catholics should be singled out as targets for evangelism. Many protestants need evangelization too, but I wouldn't presume that they weren't christians either because they hold to man-made contradictory and unbiblical protestant traditions.

View all my reviews

Martin Luther on "Ceremonies"

The more I study Martin Luther's scholarly publications, the more I realize how certain branches of modern "Lutheranism" have clearly steered away from his own views regarding theology and ethics. Recently I've been studying a newly published reader's edition of Martin Luther's Christian Freedom, which is based upon Luther's original Latin edition, one which he personally dedicated to Pope Leo X as well. The more widely distributed and popular German edition, from which older English translations derive, was loosely based on Luther's Latin manuscript, and omitted certain portions (for reasons which we don't know).1 Below is one of those edited portions from the original Latin manuscript, and it concerns the subject of liturgical "ceremonies" and their usefulness. For protestants who have been raised to think that Luther was staunchly against all liturgical ceremonies and works, the following statements by Luther will come as a surprise. Martin Luther wrote:

There are many who, when they hear of this liberty of faith, immediately turn it into an occasion for the flesh. ...They do not want to show themselves free and Christian in any other way than by their contempt and rebuking of ceremonies, traditions, and human laws. They do this as if they were Christians merely because they do no fast on the established days. Or they devour meat while others are fasting. Or they omit the customary prayers, scoffing at the precepts of men with upturned nose, while they utterly neglect everything else that pertains to the Christian religion.  

...This life cannot be conducted without ceremonies and works. For the hotblooded and those in the young age of adolescence have need of being restrained and guarded by these chains. Each one must discipline his own body by these efforts. Thus, it is necessary that the minister of Christ be prudent and faithful in ruling and teaching the people of Christ. He must act in such a manner regarding all these topics that their conscience and faith may not be offended, and no notion or root of bitterness may spring up among them, and so many be defiled. Paul warned the Hebrews about this defilement that happens when faith is lost, that they may not begin to be corrupted by a notion about works, as if they were to be justified through them. This happens easily. It defiles very many unless faith is constantly taught at the same time, though this cannot be avoided when faith is silenced and only the ordinances of men are taught. This has been done until now by the pestilential, godless, soul-murdering traditions of our pontiffs and opinions of our theologians, with countless souls having been drawn down to hell by these snares...2

1. Martin Luther, Christian Freedom: Faith Working Through Love [St Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 2011] selections from p. 44
2.  Ibid. p. 78-9, 83

Christian Political Witness: Peter Leithart's Lecture on "Violence"

Ask and you shall receive. Wheaton College has posted all of the audio and video from their 2013 Theology Conference, "Christian Political Witness." You can check out all of the audio and video from that conference here. 

The audio from Peter Leithart's lecture on "Violence" can be found here. 

The video recording of that same lecture can be found here. 

A link to the audio and video of a separate panel discussion with Peter Leithart, George Kalantzis, Mark Noll, David Gushee, and Jana Bennett can be found here and here.

Not every man really lives

When Martha heard that Jesus was coming, she went and met him, but Mary remained seated in the house. Martha said to Jesus, "Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died." But even now I know that whatever you ask from God, God will give you." Jesus said to her, "Your brother will rise again." Martha said to him, "I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day." Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this? She said to him, "yes, Lord; I believe that you are the Messiah, the Son of God, he who is coming into the world." When she had said this, she went and called her sister Mary, saying in private, "The Teacher is here and is calling for you." And when she heard it, she rose quickly and went to him. Now Jesus had not yet come into the village, but was still in the place where Martha had met him. When the Jews who were with her in the house, consoling her, saw Mary rise quickly and go out, they followed her, supposing that she was going to the tomb to weep there. Now when Mary came to where Jesus was and saw him, she fell at his feet, saying to him, "Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died." (John 11:21-32)

I know this is going to be a difficult post for me to write. Ever since I found out that my uncle Ed died this morning, I haven't been able to stop thinking about what I would write; yet now that I've started, I know it's not going to be easy. There are too many thoughts running through my mind. I'll do my best to be brief. 

I'm not that old, nor am I considerably wise for my age, but I know one thing for sure: All human beings have at least one thing in common. All human beings will die. It's an inescapable fact of life. Life is so busy and our immediate needs are so constant that we're often too focused upon living, even to the point of forgetting this one sure thing in life. Life necessitates death. All men know this. There's no way of avoiding it no matter what religion you believe, and so no one has a legitimate reason for pretending as though death is not important. As C.S. Lewis once commented in response to the recent death of his wife, "It is hard to have patience with people who say 'There is no death' or 'Death doesn't matter.' There is death. And whatever is matters. And whatever happens has consequences, and it and they are irrevocable and irreversible. You might as well say that birth doesn't matter."1  Death matters a lot. It mattered a lot to C.S. Lewis when he lost his wife. It matters a lot to me after losing my uncle Ed. It mattered a lot to Martha and Mary after losing their brother Lazarus too.

Even though I would like to write about the entire story of Lazarus, I'm not going to in this post. Instead I want to focus upon the central point of that pericope. As noted in bold type above, Martha and Mary both believed Jesus could have healed their brother. "Lord, if you would have been here, my brother would not have died," they both cried. In other words, their faith in Jesus was exceptionally great. They both knew Jesus alone had the authority and power to heal their brother. And they didn't look to anyone else. Martha even states explicitly that whatever Jesus would ask of God, God would give to him, which implies her belief in a harmonious unity between God the Father and the Son. What the Father wills, the Son obeys. What the Son asks of the Father, the Father grants. There is no disharmony between the will of the Father and the Son. If Jesus had willed to come earlier, Lazarus would have lived. If the Father had willed for His Son to come earlier, Lazarus would have lived. The only thing mistaken presumption of Martha and Mary's faith is that Jesus could only heal the living. But Jesus did not come merely to heal the living, and the Father did not send his Son into the world merely to heal the living. 

Martha clearly believes in a bodily resurrection of her brother Lazarus too. And if Martha is emphatic about this doctrine, it's reasonable to presume that her brother and sister were aware of it too. But Martha (and perhaps, Mary too) doesn't seem to understand that Jesus is the resurrection and the life until Jesus asks her if she believes it. "Do you believe this?," Jesus asks her. "Yes, Lord," she says, "I believe you are the Messiah, the Son of God, he who is coming into the world."  This is the central focus of this passage. Yes, it's amazing that Lazarus is eventually raised from death to life again. Yes, it's wonderful that the glory of God was revealed in this manner. But the central focus of the Lazarus-resurrection narrative is not Lazarus. It's not the faith of Martha and Mary either. It's that Jesus is the resurrection and the life. It's that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, whom God sent into the world so that men may believe in him alone and never die. "Whoever believes in me," Jesus said, "though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die."

There are a few noteworthy aspects of this conversation between Jesus and Martha. First, Jesus teaches that all men will die. In fact, he takes this for granted when he says, "Whoever believes in me, though he die...". According to Jesus, all men will die physically. That's a fact of life. Secondarily, Jesus is teaching that not every man really lives. Only those who live and believe in him shall never die. Life, therefore, is more than mere self-preservation, and all men know this in their heart of hearts. As I was speaking with a friend of mine on the phone today, trying to vent some of the sadness I felt just thinking about the loss of my uncle, he reminded me that God has placed a startlingly clear sense of self-preservation in the heart of all men, whether they believe in Jesus or not. People live as though they are their own gods who control their own destinies and are slaves of no one, but deep down inside they know they're not God and they also know their destinies are in their own control too. That nagging sense of self-preservation haunts them because they know every single choice they make in life has eternal consequences. They know they are culpable for thinking they are the god of their own life and death, unwilling to bow the knee to Jesus as Lord over all in life. They know that death is inevitable. They know there is a life now that exists and will end some day. And so they preserve their own life to whatever degree they want. For the Christian there is more though. 

This brings us to the third and final point I wish to draw out of this central passage of John 11:21-32. For the Christian, our lives are not our own. Jesus taught this throughout his ministry. Mary and Martha understood this when they called Jesus "Lord." Christians know they are bought with a price -- a price that is going to be paid by someone eventually, either by ourselves without Jesus or through the substitutionary sacrifice of the Son of God who loves us and gave himself for us. In other words, Christians know they are slaves who have been bought with the life and death of Jesus. Christians are not free from slavery in every sense of the term. Slavery, in some sense, is an inescapable concept. It's never an option of whether one will remain a slave or not. It's always a matter of whose slave we will be. Will we be slaves of our Master whom the Father has sent into the world? Or will we be slaves of sin, saying within our hearts "there is no God"? For the Christian, death to one's self is essential to becoming a slave. Because we have been united to Jesus who died for us, death becomes the precursor to resurrection as well. And since death becomes the precursor to resurrection, death is also the precursor to real life. Not only do we know that we will rise again bodily in the resurrection on the last day, but we know who will be raising us from death to life and by what power we will be raised. We know it will be our Lord and God who raises us because he already has raised our dead hearts to life that we may know it is He who bought us with his life and death. And because He has purchased us as his own, when our perishable bodies die, they die with him. And just as his body was raised as one more glorious, so will ours. What Jesus has begun in our perishable bodies he will raise up to be imperishable. What He has sown in weakness, He will raise in power. We can be confident, even as the Apostle Paul taught, that "If we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his." (Romans 6:5) 

I am thankful my uncle Ed knew Jesus was the resurrection and the life. Now he is washed clean. Now he is clothed in white garments. Now he is feasting at a much better table. Now he really lives. 

1.  C.S. Lewis, A Grief Observed

Speaking Bible

While discussing some of the ecclesiastical problems associated with the widespread use of extra-biblical language, particularly the language used throughout protestant traditions and textbooks, Peter Leithart commented:

The Bible is a common inheritance among all Christians. If we all learned to speak Bible, we would be speaking the same language. But we deliberately invest terms with a great deal of theological content to distinguish ourselves from other believers. We fill terms with all kinds of theological content in order to makes sure that nobody confuses us with Lutherans, because Lutherans say 'this' and we say 'this'. And I just don't see that as consistent with Jesus' desires for the Church. Jesus' desire is that the Church be one, and that we not erect those kinds of barriers. If we go back and wrestle with the Bible to speak Bible fluently then I think [with] that particular ecclesiological problem ...we are more apt to achieve what Jesus wants us to achieve, which is the unity of His body.1

1.  IN MEDIAS RES PODCAST, March 30th, 2007 

God's Atonement Supper

In his classic work, Jesus the Son of God: The Gospel Narratives as Message, Jakob Van Bruggen writes:

  [Jesus] is the lamb of God, sent to bring about the amnesty that had been promised. Jesus himself presented his ministry in terms of his readiness to give his life as a ransom for many--the pardon would be achieved through his death. Now the disciples must learn to accept this rejected and dying Master as the price paid for their lives. This is what it came down to when Jesus instituted the supper of his body and blood on the night before his betrayal. 

  He had already let his disciples know, in strong statements, that he had come down from heaven so that "his flesh" might serve as food for the world (John 6:51). After the multiplication of the loaves and fishes he invites the disciples to "eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood." Only by doing so can they have life (John 6:53). These drastic formulations already pointed to the fact that it would be by dying that he would become food for humankind, and that people therefore would learn to accept and love him as the Rejected and Dying One. ...At the last Passover he celebrated with his disciples, Jesus distributed bread and wine as symbols of his body and blood. ...The disciples must accept this offering of Jesus' life as food for their own lives. ...The event becomes a supper of atonement with God. 

  It is precisely by this conferring of the forgiving power of his death to the believing disciples that Jesus unequivocally distinguishes himself from every other person in history who has ever offered him or herself up for faith or nation. No hero or martyr first instituted a supper in order to distribute his death as food. At a later point, others may have gratefully remembered the suffering and death of other martyrs and profited from the consequences. But Jesus does not ask his disciples to simply think of him sometime in the future--he turns his death beforehand into the food and joyous drink meant for his own disciples. He is not the hero or the martyr who is prepared to give up his life in the interest of others. He distributes his death as a positive fact. He is not taken, nor does he allow himself to be taken; rather he gives his body and blood. His death does not create new chances for others, but his sacrifice as such is the new chance and eternal life. The disciples do not offer a toast for a good conclusion after Good Friday; rather they celebrate the meal of Good Friday. As the Exodus from Egypt, celebrated in the Passover, was a redeeming act of God, so will this exodus to the cross be the definitive redeeming act of God's Son. The Lamb of God gives himself as a ransom to the believers. 

  It is possible to describe the bread and wine in the night of the betrayal as a sacrificial meal. Those present participate in the redemptive power of the sacrifice. Yet there is a difference. At sacrificial meals, people ate the animal that they themselves had brought and sacrificed. At the meal Jesus arranged during this last night, the focus is on a sacrifice that the participants did not bring themselves and that, at that moment, they did not want to be brought at all. 

  It is at this meal that the meaning of Jesus' dying is revealed as unique and unlike any other death on earth. Disciples who refuse to accept what will happen are served beforehand with symbols of that which they are not yet willing to embrace.1

1.  Jakob Van Bruggen, Jesus the Son of God: The Gospel as Message [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books; 1999] pp. 169-171

O Sing a New Song to the Lord

On the second friday of each month, a robust, worship-filled event is hosted for evangelical Christians in southeastern Wisconsin. This event is formally known as a Community Evensong, and is represented by a handful of trinitarian, gospel-preaching, conservative churches that are committed to serving the communities of southeastern Wisconsin. It is hosted in Milwaukee, WI by Crossroads Church of God, a non-denominational church that has deep roots in Milwaukee soil. Every month at the Community Evensong, evangelical christians gather together to learn the Scriptures and to sing what they learn. The reason why I mention all of this is because last month I had the privilege of teaching at the Community Evensong for the first time. The scriptures we learned to sing in parts were from a hymn titled "O Sing a New Song to the Lord", which comes directly from the opening lines of Psalm 98. And so, my job this month was to teach that Psalm.

I didn't mention this in my message that evening, but it wouldn't surprise me if Psalm 98 was overlooked by many christians today, simply because it's a short 9-verse psalm that doesn't look much different than many other Psalms. In fact, it's so short, and so much like other Psalms, that some scholars think the author plagiarized earlier authentic Psalms for the composition of this one. For example, within it's nine short verses, Psalm 98 talks about the Lord doing wonderful things. It talks about the Lord's salvation and faithfulness, as well as His victory and righteousness. It talks about seas roaring and the waves of rivers clapping their hands together, all for the praise of God. But if you have ever read through the Psalms before, you know that you've heard all these themes before. This isn't new information. This isn't unfamiliar imagery. And so why did we bother learning this Psalm and this song for the Community Evensong event, especially if we already know what this Psalm is talking about?  The following is a brief response to that question.

Psalm 98 (ESV) is as follows:         
          ¹         Oh sing to the Lord a new song, 

        for he has done marvelous things! 

His right hand and his holy arm 

        have worked salvation for him. 

²  The Lord has made known his salvation; 

        he has revealed his righteousness in the sight of the nations. 

³  He has remembered his steadfast love and faithfulness 

        to the house of Israel. 

All the ends of the earth have seen 

        the salvation of our God. 

⁴  Make a joyful noise to the Lord, all the earth; 

        break forth into joyous song and sing praises! 

⁵  Sing praises to the Lord with the lyre, 

        with the lyre and the sound of melody! 

⁶  With trumpets and the sound of the horn 

        make a joyful noise before the King, the Lord! 

⁷  Let the sea roar, and all that fills it; 

        the world and those who dwell in it! 

⁸  Let the rivers clap their hands; 

        let the hills sing for joy together 

⁹  before the Lord, for he comes 

        to judge the earth. 

He will judge the world with righteousness, 

        and the peoples with equity. 

In order to appreciate this Psalm, it's important to first notice the way it is balanced. In the verses above, there are three distinctive units (vv. 1-3, 4-6, and 7-9). These three-part units are shown separately because this is the way it's composition would appear if read out loud from the original Hebrew scriptures. This balance of three-part units was intentional on the part of the original Hebrew author. The first unit is comprised of perfect-tense verbs, which, in English grammar, translates into past-tense verbs. In other words, the first unit is encouraging the reader in the present to look to the past and remember the past. The reader is to remember that "the Lord has done wonderful things!" (v. 1). The Lord "has revealed His righteousness in the sight of the nations!" (v. 2).  "The Lord has remembered His steadfast love," the result of which has been that "all nations have seen the salvation of our God." (v. 3).  All the credit of salvation, and even all the hope of God's people, rests upon God's sovereign initiative. And here, God's people are called to look back at God's loyal love to encourage their faithfulness in the present.

The second unit is comprised of imperfect, imperative verbs, which (to oversimplify what that means) is a fancy way of describing what God's people should be doing now in the present. And because this unit is filled with imperatives, it's content shouldn't be viewed as mere suggestions or whispers of advice. The text in Hebrew is actually shouting at us! Unfortunately the ESV has smoothed out the english translation of this section. More literal translations (like the NASB) are typically more helpful for understanding the emphasis of this unit. A more literal rendering of verse 4 would be:  "Shout joyfully to the Lord all the earth!!  Burst forth and sing for joy! And sing praises!"  The last verse of this unit is similarly expressed: "Shout joyfully before the King, the Lord!" This is what God's people are to do when they consider the faithfulness and lovingkindness of the Lord in times past. Our King, the Lord, is worthy of such emphatic praise!

The third unit refers entirely to the future, and this completes the balance for this Psalm. Again, some English translations have smoothed over the future emphasis contained in the original Hebrew. A better translation may be considered as follows:  "Tell the sea to roar and all it contains! Tell the world and all those who dwell in it! Tell the rivers to clap their hands! Tell the mountains to sing together for joy before the Lord! For He is coming to judge the earth. He will judge the world with righteousness, and it's people with equity."  Not only is God worthy of such emphatic praise because He has proven Himself to be faithful and loyally loving to people in covenant with Him; but this passage teaches us that His praiseworthiness ought to be proclaimed from one generation to the next. The future of God's kingdom on earth is a glorious one that cannot be hindered from coming, and because of that expectation in the future, there is no reason to stop making a joyful noise in the present.

Of course, we must also keep in mind that this Psalm was written before the coming of the Messiah. Once the Messiah came, all that was merely anticipated became an inaugurated reality. This is why Jesus, at the inauguration of his public ministry could proclaim, "Repent! For the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand!" (Matt. 3:17).  The gospel is not merely a message of personal salvation.  It is far more than that!  Keep in mind that it was a "gospel of the kingdom" that Jesus proclaimed (Matt. 3:23), and it is that gospel which his disciples proclaimed too. The disciples of Jesus today are to proclaim that gospel as well. And according to Psalm 98, we proclaim the gospel of the kingdom loud and proud in the present for two reasons: First, it's because we know exactly what God's steadfast love and faithfulness has produced in the past. Secondarily, we know that God has promised the advancement and victory of His kingdom on earth throughout the future of redemptive history. These three aspects of our Lord's kingdom -- the past, present, and future -- is what Psalm 98 is all about.  Deo Gratias.

Theology of Caroling

Pastor CJ Bowen of Christ Reformed Evangelical Church in Annapolis, Maryland has written a very good article on Christmas carol theology. Check it out at:

http://pushingafeather.wordpress.com/2012/12/28/christmas-carol-theology-joy-to-the-world/

Brought forward

In the previous post I began to provide a rationale for an alternative translation to Hebrews 9:16-18. And in two posts before that (here and here), I provided an outline of the literary structure of the very center of Hebrews. In this post I will be building off those three successive posts, attempting to provide some more support for the translation below and it's importance in context.

Again, my own formal equivalency translation is as follows:

For where a covenant is, it is necessary that the death of the institutor be carried. For a covenant is established upon dead victims, otherwise it is of no strength at all while the institutor is alive. Therefore not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood.

A more literal translation would be as follows:

For where a covenant is, it is necessary that the death of the covenant-ratifier be brought forward. For a covenant is confirmed upon dead bodies, otherwise it is not valid at all while the covenant-ratifier is alive. Therefore not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood.

My own amplified translation is as follows:

For where a covenant is, it is necessary that the death of the institutor [of the covenant] be carried [by a priest].1 For a covenant is established over dead [animal] victims, otherwise [the covenant] is of no strength at all while the institutor is alive. Therefore not even the first [covenant/priestly ministry] was inaugurated without blood.

Saint Augustine once commented on these passages, and his interpretation was that the "likeness" of "Christ's death for us" is presented here. But this "likeness" to which he was referring was "the old covenant, in which the death of the testator was prefigured in the sacrificial victim."2 No scholar to my knowledge denies that in these passages (i.e. Heb. 9:16-18) the author of Hebrews is leading his audience to see "Christ's death for us". All scholars interpret these passages in a way which illustrates Christ as the one who dies as a sacrificial victim in order to bring about the change of law "necessary" (Heb. 7:12) for the old covenant to become obsolete (Heb. 8:13).  But instead of interpreting Heb. 9:16-18 as an illustration of the priestly ministry and it's essential sacrificial system which must necessarily fade away once Christ offers himself as a living sacrifice for sin in the the "true tabernacle" (Heb. 8:2; 9:11), many scholars treat these passages as a direct reference to the literal death of Jesus. Allegedly, Jesus had to literally die (as a sacrifice for sin) in order for some figurative "will" or "testament" to go into force.

But is this really what is going on?  And what does it even matter if it's not?

As I have argued in previous posts, a "will" or "testament" is not in view at all in these verses. Instead, I contend, the author is illustrating the way in which a covenant was ratified under the old priesthood and ministry, which foreshadowed both the work of Jesus as a sacrificial victim and the Priest who mediates between God and man (i.e. God and the covenant-ratifier). At first glance the difference might appear to be too nuanced, leaving the bottom-line of the author's argument to be that someone needs to die in order for the covenant to be ratified (or the "will" to go into force). But I am arguing that there is a major difference between the two arguments. And I'm not quite sure why many scholars consider the translation of this passage to be a moot point.

Why should we not consider it to be a big conceptual difference if the old covenant Scriptures, especially God's Law given to Moses (which is what the author of Hebrews is using throughout chapter nine to illustrate his point), don't ever describe priestly duties or sacrificial requirements in terms of a "will" or "testament"? As far as I can tell, there is absolutely no theology of "will-making" or "will-keeping" in the Mosaic law. But there are a lot of illustrations about "covenant-making", "covenant-ratifying", and "covenant-keeping". My own personal view is that if the theology of "covenant making" and "covenant ratifying" is understood within it's old covenant context of priesthood and sacrifice, this will help broaden our understanding of the "covenant" in the book of Hebrews. I do not personally believe that the bottom-line of the author's argument in Hebrews 9:16-18 is that Jesus died to inaugurate a necessary transition from an old "covenant" to a new "covenant." I do adopt that basic terminology, but I do not adopt many modern conceptions about the author's own use of that term. My understanding is that the bottom-line of 9:16-18 is that worshipers under the old covenant were required to ratify their covenant with God by offering the death of an animal as a substitutionary sacrifice, and that the earthly ministry of the Levitical priesthood was the only mediator between the death of that substitutionary victim and the worshiper. This is what the Law of God prescribed, and so this is what I believe the author of Hebrews is utilizing to prove his point. And so, by extension, because the Law required an earthly priesthood to bring forward the blood of animal victims into the presence of God, once Jesus enters the "true tabernacle" with His own blood (of which the earthly tabernacle was just a "shadow" and it's priestly ministry a "parable" according to 8:5 and 9:9), and offers it, and is received by God as satisfactory, there must of necessity be a transition from an old covenant priestly ministry to a new covenant priestly ministry. But it is precisely at this point that modern translations of Hebrews 9:16-18 are not able to make a direct connection between priesthood and covenant, which is what I firmly believe the author of Hebrews is describing all throughout chapters 8 and 9.

All throughout the book of Hebrews, the author is not addressing some broad, sweeping change to God's "covenant" as it pertains to the means by which sinners "get saved" (e.g. the old covenant was salvation by law, but the new covenant is entirely of grace; the old covenant was based on works, but the new covenant is based on faith, etc.,). Instead, upon closer examination, what we find is that the author is addressing a specific change to God's "covenant" as it pertains to it's essential identification with Israel as a kingdom of priests. In other words, the author is addressing a specific change of priesthood and the essential ministry with which it is identified. Moreover, he is arguing that the Law itself anticipated this and taught this inevitable change in various ways, teaching the eventual necessity of changing from a continual sacrificial offering to the once-for-all-self-sacrifice of Jesus, from priests after the order of Levi to Jesus after the order of Melchizedek (Heb. chs. 5-7), from Moses and Aaron, Israel's Apostle and High Priest, to Jesus, the Apostle and High Priest of our confession (Heb. 3:1). In summary, this letter of Hebrews is about the royal priesthood of Israel as God's adopted "son" being lead to Jesus, the true Son of God, of which their priestly ministry and "sonship" was but a foreshadow. Unfortunately this necessary connection between "covenant" and "priestly ministry" becomes skewed in Hebrews 9:16-18 once the translation of a "will" or "testament" is applied.

As a matter of fact, as soon as the word diatheke (which is the Greek word for "covenant", but translated as a "will" or "testament" in 9:16-18) enters into this letter of Hebrews, it functions within a context that is completely oblivious to the need for a "will" or "testament" to come into force. And as the author's discussion of diatheke continues from one thought to another, from chapter to chapter, the context still remains oblivious to any need for a discussion about a "will" or "testament." The first place diatheke is used in Hebrews is in 7:22, and the author begins a discussion about Christ becoming the guarantee of a "better covenant". But notice carefully that the context refers to a change in the law pertaining to the old covenant priestly administration. In the very next verses of chapter 7, verses 23 and 24, the author argues that "The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office, but he [Jesus] holds his priesthood permanently because he continues forever." The discussion of a "better covenant" never shifts away from that contextual understanding of priestly administration.

Modern translations insert the word "covenant" in eleven places between 7:22 and 9:16, and yet the actual word diatheke (i.e. "covenant") is only found in eight of those places in the original Greek text. In the remaining three places (Heb. 8:7,13; 9:1), we find the beginning of an intentional conceptual parallel between the "first" covenant and the "first" priestly administration, between the "new" covenant and the "new" priestly administration. As I mentioned a moment ago, the author's first mention of a diatheke (i.e. a "covenant") is in 7:22 and it is speaking about a change of law pertaining to the old covenant priestly administration (i.e. "ministry"). The next occurrence of diatheke ("covenant") is in 8:6, which says that "Christ has obtained a ministry (i.e. a priestly ministry) that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises." Notice carefully that in the following verse, verse 7, the author begins the intentional conceptual parallel mentioned moments ago. Hebrews 8:7 says, "For if that first _______  had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second." Here, after the word "first", I have left a blank line for the purpose of showing where the author omits the word "covenant" found in modern translations. I believe the author has allowed this ellipsis, and is beginning a series of three successive ellipses, in order to help his audience make the conceptual connection themselves. In the larger context of Hebrews 8, the author has already begun a discussion about a "better covenant" in 7:22, referring to a change in priestly administration. Here in 8:6, he is discussing Christ as obtaining a priestly ministry through which which He mediates for those under the new covenant. The "first" that "had been faultless" was not simply a covenant. The author is talking about a priestly ministry under the old covenant. The first priestly ministry was "faulty," which is why the author can use the laws pertaining to it to illustrate a necessary change once the Messiah accomplishes redemption once for all.

The same is true for the other two elliptical examples. In 8:13, the author says, "In speaking of a new ______, He makes the first ______ obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away." Again, one can just as easily insert the word "ministry" in each of the underlined areas, because the context of chapter eight, including the quotation from Jeremiah in verses 8-12, is describing the Lord's adoption of Israel as a royal priesthood by establishing a covenant with them at Sinai.  What I am not saying dogmatically is that the word "ministry" should be inserted in those blank spaces. The word "covenant" is the proper syntactical insertion. My point, again, is simply that the author is intentionally associating the old "covenant" with the old priestly "ministry". Beginning at 7:22, the change in covenant is conceptually parallel with a change in priestly ministry. This becomes even more obvious when we consider the way he follows 8:13 with a description of the priestly administration in 9:1, which is the third and final example of intentional ellipsis: "Now even the first ________ had regulations for worship and an earthly place of holiness."

Clearly, by omitting the word "covenant" in this third illustration, the author is not talking about a "covenant" in some abstract sense of "getting saved," but rather a specific covenant administration that regulates "worship and an earthly place of holiness". It's especially interesting to note that the Greek word translated here as "worship" is latreia, which refers to public priestly duties within the tabernacle.3

At the end of the last post I briefly mentioned my desire to explain the peculiar insertion of the words "be carried" and "over dead victims" into my translation (above). I will save that explanation for the next post. But for now, assuming that my translation is defensible, I hope I have shed enough light upon this subject for others to consider whether my translation of 8:16-17 (above) fits better into the broader context of Christ obtaining a priestly ministry that is better than the old one.









1.  An alternative would be to take the literal translation of "be brought forward" as a reference to the worshiper bringing his own representative animal sacrifice to the priest, who would then draw near to God by presenting the dead animal as an offering to Him. The worshiper has to bring an animal before the Lord and slaughter it representatively, because the law required the death of a substitute to "be brought forward" into the Lord's presence.
2.  Thomas Oden, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: Hebrews [Intervarsity Press: Downers Grove, Il; 2005] p. 141
3.  Latreia is used throughout the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament (LXX) as a reference to the public ministry of priests. Some examples of latreia include Joshua 22:27 and I Chron. 28:13. Joshua talks about performing the "service (latreia) of the Lord in His presence with our burnt offerings and sacrifices and peace offerings." The Chronicler talks about "the divisions of the priest and of the Levites, and all the work of the service (latreia) in the house of the Lord."  In Hebrews 9:6, the author says that "the priests go regularly into the first section, performing their ritual duties (latreia)."

Death of the one who made it

In the previous post I provided a translation of Hebrews 9:16-18 which is different than what is officially published in English translations. In order to illustrate the significance of the difference between translations, I would like to present three different angles from which that text can be viewed.

The first will come directly from the ESV translation, along with the rest of its larger context, starting at 9:15 and ending at verse 20.  The second translation will be the central verses in question, but with one word translated consistently the same way: the word "covenant" (diatheke in the Greek, from which the English word for "covenant" is translated). The third translation will be my own, along with some support for why I truly believe it was the original intent of the author. Of course, if anyone would like to offer some suggestions as to why my translation is not accurate enough, or just plain incorrect, feel free to comment in the box below. First things first (Heb. 9:15-20; ESV):

Therefore he [Jesus] is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant. For where a will is involved, the death of the one who made it must established. For a will takes effect only at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive. Therefore not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood. For when every commandment of the law had been declared by Moses to all the people, he took the blood of calves and goats... saying, "This is the blood of the covenant that God commanded for you." 

First, notice carefully that this translation is arguing about a new covenant, not a new will and testament. A will and testament are synonymous terms, and they are legal documents which detail the wishes and desires of the author to be enacted and provided upon the author's death. A covenant, on the other hand is something different according the Bible and in the mind of the author of Hebrews everywhere else in this letter, even though technically a will and testament is a type of covenant. A covenant, theologically speaking, is "a mutually binding compact between God and His people sovereignly transacted by the Lord wherein a promise is made by God which calls for trust on the part of His people and entails obligations of submission which are sanctioned by blessings and cursings"1 In the context of Hebrews, the author is describing the necessary change of the old covenant in matters pertaining to its laws of priesthood, and by extension its sacrificial system. And so, the sudden transition from "covenant" to a "will" or "testament" seems completely out of place and unnecessary. My own personal opinion is that not only is it unnecessary, but the author committed a blatantly logical fallacy of equivocation -- not simply a conveniently random use of word-play -- if he was indeed shifting from "covenant" to "will" within the premises of his argument, before reaching his conclusion about the blood of calves and goats as "the blood of the covenant that God made for you".

But perhaps I'm getting a little ahead of my audience. Perhaps further explanation about the fallacy of equivocation is needed to understand this point of mine. The fallacy of equivocation is when a premise within an argument utilizes a word with more than one meaning, but then utilizes that same exact word in a following premise of the same argument in a different sense or with a different meaning than its use in the first premise, and all for the purpose of reaching a certain conclusion. For example, if I wanted to show that a certain feather cannot be dark in color, I might present an argument like this:

The feather in my hand is light.
And we all know that whatever is light cannot be dark also.
Therefore, the feather in my hand cannot be dark.

Would anyone seriously consider this to be a valid method of argumentation? Of course not, because the word "light" is used equivocally. In the first premise, "light" is being used to describe the feather's weight, not it's color or brightness, even though "light" can carry both meanings. Sure, it's word-play too, but it's also a fallacious way of reasoning. And this is how I see modern translations of Hebrews 9:16-17 when they use the word diatheke. The author of Hebrews uses diatheke with a very clear meaning of a "covenant" throughout his letter. But supposedly the author has a good reason for shifting away from that meaning and to argue with that same exact word (diatheke), but with a different meaning instead: the meaning of a "will" or "testament". Then, of course, within the very next sentence, the author goes back again to using diatheke in the sense of a "covenant", which is used everywhere else in the letter except 9:16-17. In context, it seems obvious that the author begins by mentioning a "first covenant (diatheke)", and then he follows through with a few more details about this diatheke (i.e. "covenant", or allegedly a "will") before reaching a conclusion about "the blood of the covenant that God commanded for you." This sudden shift from covenant to will to covenant again smacks of something very odd every time I look at modern translations.

And so, with this in mind, I would like to offer an alternative translation. But first, before we get to the alternative translation, we need to view the exact same translation with a consistent use of the same word, the word "covenant". What I hope to show is that by translating the word diatheke consistently as "covenant" (instead of changing it to a "will") we get a little closer to the author's actual intent:

For where a covenant is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established. For a covenant takes effect only at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive. Therefore not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood. (Heb. 9:16-18)

Now, some scholars have suggested that this translation makes no sense because we know that Israelites made covenants all the time under the old covenant. In fact, every time they went to offer a sacrifice they were renewing their covenant obligations with God, and none of them died or were even required to die! But here the author of Hebrews teaches that those acts of covenant renewal were not in force as long as the one who made it was alive. Therefore the conclusion has been that "the one who made the covenant" must not be describing the worshiper, because he remains alive while renewing his covenant. Instead, the author is performing word-play with diatheke, knowing that the same word can mean both "covenant" and "will" or "testament". And so, where a "will" is involved, the "death of the one who made it" can be viewed as the death of Jesus, not the worshiper.

But is this really a reasonable charge against this translation?

Even if my translation (below and in the previous post) appears at first glance to be unrealistic, I am going to argue that it is very realistic within a context about the old covenant model of priesthood and animal sacrifice, which I believe the author also had in mind (as is obvious from the context itself).  If the author is describing the temporary, old covenant administration of worship in which animals represented the worshiper, as well as the priesthood which mediated between God and the worshiper, this consistent translation of "covenant" makes perfect sense.

Below, I am going to present what I believe to be a correct translation of Hebrews 9:16-18. I welcome any healthy criticism, but my request is for the reader to look carefully at how well this new translation fits within its larger context:

For where a covenant is, it is necessary that the death of the institutor be carried. For a covenant is established upon dead victims, otherwise it is of no strength at all while the institutor is alive. Therefore not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood. 

With the sacrificial system in mind, this translation seems natural. A worshiper under the old covenant ministry and priesthood would enter the tabernacle with an animal to represent him. He would lay his hands on the animal representing him, and then he would slaughter the animal. The priest would then carry the dead body of the animal (representing the worshiper) and it's blood into areas which the worshiper himself was not allowed. And it was because the worshiper presented an animal before God to die in his place (representatively, as prescribed by the Lord), and that there was a priest (as prescribed by the Lord) present to carry his dead body into the presence of God, that the worshiper was able to renew his covenant with God. The whole purpose of priests carrying dead animals into God's presence and sprinkling their blood for atonement was to teach the worshiper what they deserve, as well as their need for a priest to mediate between themselves and God.

This brings us to the amplified translation that I offered in the previous post:

For where a covenant is, it is necessary that the death of the institutor [of the covenant] be carried [by a priest]. For a covenant is established over dead [animal] victims, otherwise [the covenant] is of no strength at all while the institutor is alive. Therefore not even the first [covenant/priestly ministry] was inaugurated without blood. 

In order to provide further support for this translation, I will need to present more evidence in its favor in a future post. I still need to discuss why I include the phrases "be carried" and "over dead victims" in my translation. But like I just mentioned, I'll be saving that for a future post.

To be continued...






1.  Greg Bahnsen, Outline of Systematic Theology,  http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/system.pdf 

The Center of Hebrews

In a previous post I discussed the central chiastic structure to the book of Hebrews as follows:

A.   Hebrews 8:1-5

B.   Hebrews 8:6-13

            C.   Hebrews 9:1-10

            C’.  Hebrews 9:11-14

B’.  Hebrews 9:15-22

A’.  Hebrews 9:23-28

A.   The temporal, earthly level at which the Old Covenant priestly ministry of the Levites takes place  (8:1-5)

B.   God’s covenant with man and its association with the old and temporal ministry of mediation by the Levitical Priesthood (8:6-13)

C.   The organization of the old ministry and the unsatisfactory nature of priestly service in God’s “House” as illustrated in the earthly priest’s need to “continually” enter through "the first tent", but only through the "second" tent once every year  (9:1-10)

C’.   The organization of Christ’s ministry and the satisfactory nature of priestly service in God’s House because Jesus “entered through the greater and more perfect tent,” thereby obtaining "eternal redemption"  (9:11-14)

B’.   God’s covenant with man and its association with the new and eternal priestly ministry of mediation by Jesus (9:15-22)

A’.   The eternal, heavenly level at which the New Covenant priestly ministry of Jesus Christ takes place  (9:23-28)

In order to see more clearly the literary patterns discussed in each section, I have provided a parallel textual analysis below for each corresponding section:

A.  Hebrews 8:1-5  

• (v. 3) "It is necessary..."
• (v. 4) "if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all...[to] offer gifts according to the law"
• (v. 5) "they [the earthly line of Levitical priests] serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly sanctuary"  

A'.  Hebrews 9:23-28

• (v. 23) "It was necessary..."
• (v. 24) "Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, but into heaven itself, nor...as the hight priest enters the holy place year by year"
• (v. 23) "the copies of the heavenly things [need] to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than [earthly ones offered by Levitical priests]"

B.  Hebrews 8:6-13

• (v. 7) "For if that first [covenant/priestly ministry] had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second" 
• (v. 8) "I will make a new covenant..." 
• (v. 13) "When [God] said 'a new', he makes the first [covenant/priestly ministry] obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away."

B'.  Hebrews 9:15-22

• (v. 16-18) "For where a covenant1 is, it is necessary that the death of the institutor [of the covenant] be carried [by a priest]. For a covenant is established over dead [animal] victims, otherwise [the covenant] is of no strength at all while the institutor is alive.2 Therefore not even the first [covenant/priestly ministry] was inaugurated without blood" 
• (v. 15) "[Christ] is the mediator of a new covenant... to set them free from the transgressions committed under the first covenant"
• (v. 28) "Christ, having been offered once to carry the sins of many, will appear a second time... to bring salvation to those who are eagerly waiting for him."

C.  Hebrews 9:1-10

• (v. 2) "For a tent was prepared, the first section, in which were the lampstand and the table and the bread of the Presence. It is called the Holy Place"
• (v. 6) "[Levitical] priests go continually into the first section, performing their ritual duties, but into the second only the high priest goes... The Holy Spirit showing by this that the way into the Holy Place was not disclosed as long as the outer tabernacle was still standing."

C'.  Hebrews 9:11-14

• (v. 11-12) "But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things things to come... [he entered] through the greater and more perfect tent... having obtained eternal redemption."

With this chiastic framework in mind, two things seem apparent: 

1) The "covenant" in these passages centers upon the priestly ministry: one earthly and one heavenly, one first and one second, one old and one new, one renewed continually year by year and one obtained for all eternity.

2) There does not seem to be a place within the close context of 9:16-18 or even the broader context of 8:1 through 9:14 for the theme of covenant-keeping to shift from away from the sacrificial setting of the earthly priestly ministry and toward the more abstract concept of a "will" or "testament" as is found in many English translations. 

1.  I do not believe that modern Bible versions provide an adequate translation of Hebrews 9:16-17 when they choose to adjust the meaning of the word "covenant", which is used all throughout Hebrews in that specific sense alone, into an entirely different meaning of "will" or "testament" only in these verses. In order to switch over from a discussion about covenant to a discussion about a will or testament, the author would be committing the logical fallacy of equivocation. 

2.  The translation provided above is my own, but is based upon the underlying Greek text and some insights by scholars such as Greg Bahnsen in his lectures on the Book of Hebrews, and Marvin Vincent in his Word Studies in the New Testament. Commenting on Hebrews 9:16-17, both Bahnsen and Vincent note that the Greek explicitly mentions the "carrying" of the dead victim, which describes the institutor of the covenant needing to die representatively and be carried by a Levitical priest. Moreover, in verse 17, the word for "dead" or "death" (depending on the english translation) is plural in Greek, with no other noun to modify, and so it literally reads "dead [things]". In the context of the Levitical priestly ministry in the tabernacle courtyard, the Israelite-worshiper would renew his covenant with God by bringing an appropriate animal to represent him as prescribed in the Law, and the worshiper would then lay his hands on the animal and slay it in order for the priest to literally carry the dead carcass of the representative animal into the very presence of God (via the great altar of ascension and the corresponding sprinkling of blood on the altar of incense in front of the "Most Holy Place" within the first tent).

Why Baptize Jadon?

My son, Jadon, is going to be baptized this upcoming Lord’s Day, November 18th, 2012, at the age of 11 weeks. About a month ago, a friend asked my wife why we are baptizing him, since she knew we are not Roman Catholic. I wasn't surprised by this question. Infant baptism is a common practice throughout the Roman Catholic Church. The reason why they baptize babies is because they believe the ceremony itself mysteriously, but literally, “washes away” sin, thereby granting the baby a "ticket to heaven." In the Roman Catholic view, the person baptized doesn’t necessarily have a choice either. One does not have to believe in order to be baptized. One gets baptized into the Roman Catholic Church, and then receives a one-way ticket to heaven (or purgatory, which eventually leads to heaven anyway).

So then, why are we baptizing our son? Doesn't Jadon have to make that decision for himself? Isn’t it better to give him that choice, and to avoid the mistaken view that baptism is an automatic ticket to heaven?

To understand why we are choosing to baptize our child, and why historically it has most certainly been considered orthodox to baptize a child, I will be focusing upon two theological issues, and only two issues:

1)    God always saves people by means of a covenant1 – His covenant. Unfortunately, 21^st century Christians generally don’t seem to view God’s plan of salvation in terms of a covenant. Instead, the modern trend among evangelicals appears to view salvation merely in terms of some activity by the Holy Spirit. Some evangelicals even claim that a mere profession of belief that "Jesus is Lord" is evidence of the Holy Spirit’s saving activity, and a one way ticket to heaven. Biblically, as well as historically, God’s people have not been identified merely as people in whom the Holy Spirit operates. God’s people have been identified primarily as people chosen by God through some objective sign and seal of his covenant.

2)    Nowhere in the Bible do we find people who initiate a relationship with God. God is the one who seeks out a people for Himself. He reveals Himself to them, and invites them to know Him, serve Him, and glorify Him. And there are two, and only two, circumstances in which the Lord seeks out people to be in a covenant with Him: people who are already outside of God’s covenant, and people who are born into the world. These two circumstances are normative in Scripture. All other circumstances are extra-ordinary circumstances in history.

All throughout the epistles of the New Testament, gentiles are learning about Jesus and are choosing to be baptized because they were previously identified as “foreigners” and outsiders of God’s covenant (Ephesians 2:12, 19). They believed in God and then chose to be baptized as acceptance that God sought them out graciously, and chose them for himself. In other words, they chose to be baptized because they no longer wanted to remain outside of God’s covenant. But what about the second type of person whom the Lord seeks out? What about children born into this world? Some children are born into the world as outsiders of God’s covenant; that is, in fact, how the gentile converts of Scripture were born and raised. But it’s obvious that not all children enter God’s world this way. Some children are born into a family that does, in fact, believe in God, and has been given the terms of God’s covenant. God Himself promises to be faithful in showing covenant loyalty to the generations that love Him and keep His commandments (Ex. 20:6; Deut. 5:10). In other words, the Bible reveals from cover to cover that God works within the context of families already in covenant with Him through faith, not just with outsiders who know nothing of or about God. This promise of God working through families is so important, and yet often neglected by modern evangelicals, that I feel the need to discuss it in greater detail.

What God has revealed is that from the very beginning of human history, in the Garden of Eden, where Adam’s fall affected all his children and their relationship with God, we learn that God’s promise of grace after the fall also affected Adam’s children: “I will put enmity between you [Satan] and the woman and between your seed and her seed” (Gen. 3:15). Clearly God’s grace was going to be given to a child of Eve. Historically we know that child was Seth (Gen. 4:25-26). Moreover, we learn that God continued this pattern after the Flood with Noah. God promised Noah, “I Myself do establish My covenant with you, and with your descendants after you” (Gen. 9:9).

Now, when God reveals something once, that ought to be good enough. When God repeats Himself twice, we had better pause. But when God repeats Himself three or more times, we are without excuse if we neglect what He says. And God said again, only this time to Abraham, “I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your descendants after you” (Gen. 17:7). Likewise, God repeated Himself to Isaac (“…to you and your descendants…” Gen. 26:4) and Jacob this same way (“…to you and your descendants with you…” Gen. 28:4). This is why we find Jesus' apostles baptizing parents and their households, without any further explanation. Further explanation is not needed if salvation is viewed in terms of God's covenant. The apostle Paul illustrates this pattern in Acts 16:31 when he proclaims to the Philippian jailer, "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household." And verse 33 says, "And immediately he and all his family were baptized." Shortly thereafter in Scripture we find a woman named Lydia becoming a believer. But not only was she herself baptized; "her household" was also baptized (Acts 16:14-15). Likewise, on another occasion, Paul mentions that he baptized the "household of Stephannas" (I Cor. 1:16).

So let's step back for a second, zoom out, and take a look at the big picture again. When God looked at Adam and Eve, He spoke of families that would be in covenant with Him and families that would not. When God graciously chose Noah and Abraham and their descendants, he invited and chose families, not just individuals, to be in covenant with Him. The same was true of the Mosaic and Davidic covenants, but I’m hoping this point has been sufficiently made already. This is why Peter, without any further explanation, can proclaim loud and clear at Pentecost:

Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins... For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to Himself. (Acts 2:38-39) 

Now that we understand that God's promise is not only to individuals from outside the covenant, but also to the households of believers, I want to go back to a point I made earlier: God initiates everything. This point can’t be stressed enough. God initiates, as seen in the words of Peter in Acts 2:38-39. God's promise is for "everyone whom the Lord our God calls to Himself." God initiates, which is precisely the outward, visible sign on display when a child is baptized. This is also true of a grown-up stranger and “outsider” of God’s covenant who is baptized. God’s sovereign initiation is on display in baptism. But since no one reading this post is seriously concerned about grown-ups choosing to receive baptism, and this discussion is really about the ramifications of baptizing infants, I want to discuss a little more about children that are born into believing families – families already in covenant with God.

Many Christians today argue that one must believe first in order to be identified among God’s people; that is to say, to be in a covenant relationship with Him. This proposition is offered as a dilemma for those who wish to baptize infants because it's very difficult to identify the expression of faith in an infant who barely expresses anything other than being hungry and wanting a diaper change. But is belief a prerequisite? Is this really the way God reveals membership into His covenant? Even under the Old Covenant, God required participation from Abraham and his children, without the children's consent:

And God said to Abraham, "As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your offspring after you throughout their generations. This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised." (Gen. 17:9) 

If Abraham was to be faithful to the covenant with God, he and his sons would have to bear the "sign of the covenant" (verse 11), which, at that time, included circumcision for every male. Every male of every age who was not circumcised would be "cut off from his people" because "he has broken My covenant" (Gen. 17:14). As a result, male Israelite children who received the sign and seal of God's covenant (i.e. circumcision) truly became heirs of God's promises, without ever first demonstrating true faith or "making a decision for themselves."

Some Christians still think that this evidence isn't convincing because it isn't practical enough. As a counter argument, they insist that faith in God is a prerequisite for baptism because that way the believer should be held accountable to God based upon his own free choice of entering into that covenant relationship. Allegedly, if an infant is baptized, it would be unfair for that infant to be held accountable because he entered into a covenant with God without his own consent. However, upon further reflection, this really isn't a helpful argument either. Not only does it ignore the very clear teaching of the Scriptures that God chooses parents and their household to be in covenant with Him, but it also assumes that someone should only be held accountable to God if they first agreed to enter into the covenant, which an infant does not do. But what we find in the Scriptures is that God does in fact hold covenant children accountable to Him in order to remain a member of His household. Everyone we find in Scripture who is in covenant with God had to be faithful to Him. That includes children too. They had to repent and they had to believe in the God that set them apart to serve them. The Scriptures overwhelmingly testify to this fact. If a member of any age would later manifest himself or herself as apostate (i.e. rejecting God’s covenant), the result would be a loss of inheritance. Even the Mosaic economy of redemption which God designed was replete with laws pertaining to the inheritance of God's people. The symbolism of such revelation is obvious too: not all members of God’s covenant are regenerate in heart, but all members are set apart with covenant obligations. They must embrace God’s promises and exercise faith, or they would inevitably lose their inheritance with God’s people.

Today, baptism is the sign that marks the covenant people of God, the worldwide Christian Church. It would take too long for just one blog post to demonstrate the relationship between the old covenant sacraments of baptism and circumcision, and why circumcision no longer remains a sign and seal of God’s covenant, while baptism does remain. (Yes, I said that right. Baptism was an old covenant sacrament, along with circumcision for males.) Perhaps I’ll need to discuss those tedious details in a future post. But the bottom line is that baptism is the sign that marks the covenant people of God under the New Covenant, and that same covenant-keeping God still works within the context of families already in covenant with Him through faith, not just with outsiders who know nothing of or about Him and His covenant.

This means that Christian men and women are required to raise their children as Christians. When God looks at the children of baptized men and women today, He sees children who are in covenant with him because He has promised to be God to His people and to their offspring after them. Baptism simply ratifies the covenant into which the children were born. Like the Israelites before them, children of the New Covenant still have to repent and believe in the God who calls them to be holy like He is holy (I Cor. 7:14). Each child has a choice to be faithful to the living and true God that has graciously saved their parents, and by extension, their household. Until covenant children reject God, they ought to be treated as heirs of God’s promise because God has identified them as heirs of His promise. Notice carefully that the apostle John addresses "little children" as Christians (I Jn. 2:12), and likewise, when Paul addresses "the saints" in Ephesus (Eph. 1:1), he includes children among those saints (Eph. 6:1). In other words, Christian parents have every right to treat their children as Christians, identified as being in a covenant with Him, because God treats them as Christians.

As Jadon grows and matures, he will learn a lot about the God of the Bible. We will teach him that God knew him before he was born, and that God chose him to be our son, knitting him in the womb of a Christian family for the purpose of serving Him and raising up another Godly family in the future to serve Him. Jadon will know that our family worships The Creator, Lord, and only Savior of the world, the triune God revealed in the Scriptures. He will know that God sees him as His child, and that he needs to trust his Heavenly Father in all things. My wife and I will model what it means to repent and confess our sins to God. We will model a life that belongs entirely to God and will teach Jadon that his life also belongs to God, and there is nowhere he can run or hide to escape that reality; and to pretend otherwise, suppressing the truth of God, rejecting His promises, despising His grace, will bring the sure covenant faithfulness of God: the loss of inheritance with the family of God. Instead of treating Jadon as an outsider, Jadon will be loved as a child of God. He will be nurtured and admonished as a child of God. He will receive a happy, worshipful, loving, and Godly environment in which to live as a child of God. At no point in Jadon’s childhood will he be raised to think of himself as anything but a child of God. And unless he proves otherwise, we have every right to embrace God’s promise that he is a true child of God. Jadon will grow up knowing that God graciously chose him, and that any response of faith on his part, is because of God’s grace in choosing him.

So why are we going to baptize our son? In short, we are not. God is going to, because God is the one who always initiates. We’re just embracing His promises by faith, and trusting in His grace.

1.  Different sources will provide different nuances of meaning, but whenever I use the term "Covenant" in this post, I am operating with a definition provided by the philosopher and Christian apologist, Dr. Greg Bahnsen, who stated that the Biblical concept of a covenant is:  "A mutually bonding compact between God and His people sovereignly transacted by the Lord wherein a promise is made by God which calls for trust on the part of His people and entails obligations of submission which are sanctioned by blessings and cursings." -- Greg Bahnsen, PhD, Outline of Systematic Theology,  http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/system.pdf